Recommended Posts

I'm really stuck between deciding whether or not @Dog has honestly missed the point or whether he's being a dishonest shit trying to tap-dance around it.

Your words Dog: Anyone who believes that free speech can be selective, doesn't believe in free speech. They don't even understand the concept.

Now, European countries are selective in the speech they allow. Very selective. For example, that Nazi rally you claim one must accept as "free speech" or be someone that doesn't even understand the concept... that's explicitly and legally prohibited in Europe. With the UN accepting that is in keeping with the UN declaration of human rights.

Or, just in case you really are a braindead moron and not the disingenuous weasel you appear to be, that means that by your own definition, Europe does not have the right to "free speech" because the concept of speech they allow is selective.

And now time to watch Dog try to salvage this fuck up...

You're descending into the pedantic. That one European country has a specific restriction on a form of speech, (which btw they all do, including the US) does not mean free speech rights do not exist in Europe, they do.

You're descending into the pedantic. That one European country has a specific restriction on a form of speech, (which btw they all do, including the US) does not mean free speech rights do not exist in Europe, they do.

You long ago descended into farce on this one Dog. If a European country is allowed to selectively restrict speech in a way that would exclude Nazi rallies - it is not free speech, as even an understanding of the concept of "free speech" doesn't allow that. Your words. Europe allows some countries to have more speech than Germany, but because they are allowed to restrict it as far as Germany's non-free speech - it is not a right. When you are allowed to take a privilege away from someone, they are not entitled to it. If they are not entitled to it, it's not a right.

Your words, Dog. You are going to have a hard time weaselling out of them without admitting you were wrong (either then or now).

I'm just pointing out that you're being ridiculously, hilariously, inconsistent.

I'm not a fan of hate speech laws especially when applied discriminately and I don't trust government agents with the task of judging hatefulness. That said, I don't know that I would call them shameful, more misguided.

Hate speech laws demonstrate a willingness to compromise free speech they don't demonstrate absence of belief in or understanding of free speech .

BTW ..You put "shameful" in quotes. Is it me you are quoting if so was it wrt something other than the use of violence?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You long ago descended into farce on this one Dog. If a European country is allowed to selectively restrict speech in a way that would exclude Nazi rallies - it is not free speech, as even an understanding of the concept of "free speech" doesn't allow that. Your words. Europe allows some countries to have more speech than Germany, but because they are allowed to restrict it as far as Germany's non-free speech - it is not a right. When you are allowed to take a privilege away from someone, they are not entitled to it. If they are not entitled to it, it's not a right.

Your words, Dog. You are going to have a hard time weaselling out of them without admitting you were wrong (either then or now).

I'm not a fan of hate speech laws especially when applied discriminately and I don't trust government agents with the task of judging hatefulness. That said, I don't know that I would call them shameful, more misguided.

Hate speech laws demonstrate a willingness to compromise free speech they don't demonstrate absence of belief in or understanding of free speech .

BTW ..You put "shameful" in quotes. Is it me you are quoting if so was it wrt something other than the use of violence?

4/10 - The red herring at the beginning looked promising but failed to deliver the necessary distraction from the point.

Dog just doesn't seem to have it in him to man up to his fuck up or to concede the point based on his own words. Sad. Bigly.

Share on other sites

Question, for both sides of this debate: are "rights" something granted by governments / constitutions, or are "rights" something inherent & pre-existing, recognized by governments / constitutions?

Getting into political philosophy, but immutable rights exist pre-govt. the question of course, are which rights are those? The founders had a version that most Americans believe are immutable, but others from other traditions would find silly, if not downright dangerous to society.

Question, for both sides of this debate: are "rights" something granted by governments / constitutions, or are "rights" something inherent & pre-existing, recognized by governments / constitutions?

In this context, I think rights are something granted by society and then recognised by government. Over time, society changes what they believe a person is entitled to, society then might have to fight in order to make that right legally enforceable, and governments (sooner or later accept) that the society they govern wants that right recognised by law and enshrine it at the appropriate level of legislation.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of hate speech laws especially when applied discriminately and I don't trust government agents with the task of judging hatefulness. That said, I don't know that I would call them shameful, more misguided.

Hate speech laws demonstrate a willingness to compromise free speech they don't demonstrate absence of belief in or understanding of free speech .

BTW ..You put "shameful" in quotes. Is it me you are quoting if so was it wrt something other than the use of violence?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm not so sure these "rights" we speak of are "God given". They are a social construct. Back in the good old days, the only one with rights was the biggest, baddest dude in the neighborhood.

Technically speaking, "rights" are not "God given" but "endowed by our Creator". There is no mention of God in either the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. And the Constitution is the document that would define our rights, not the DOI.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Technically speaking, "rights" are not "God given" but "endowed by our Creator". There is no mention of God in either the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. And the Constitution is the document that would define our rights, not the DOI.

Our creator. Ok. Was I supposed to list all of them? I figured the quotes would suffice.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don’t disagree, but I also don’t see how that addresses the point I was trying to make.

I suppose I missed your point. I don't see rights as the product of a social construct. Only the restriction of them. You basically have the rights that are left over from what you had in the first place.

From the peoples perspective, the Constitution practically defines exceptions, not rules. Anything not forbidden is okay. It's based on natural law theory that goes back to Plato.

Take just a couple of portions of the first amendment as an example:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is nothing in this amendment that grants anything. The freedom of speech and the the right of the people to peaceably assemble are not granted anywhere earlier than this mention. They are presumed. We already had them before this document was even drafted.

I'm with Dog on this. The Bill of Rights was not intended to grant anything. It limits government on infringement of rights people already had. "God given", if you will.

I know how the founding father's phrased it, but that doesn't make it so anymore than the wide variety of religious texts people wrote and once controlled their society with.

Take, for example, the right to bear arms. It is not "god given". It is something man, at the time, decided would be a good thing to have society entitled to for the purposes of a well regulated militia. Prior to it's inclusion in the US Constitution - there was no such "right". Government could legislate certain people could not possess or use certain kinds of weapons, and that was generally accepted around the world as acceptable. Prior to the US enshrining it in legislation, the "right" to bear arms was merely a privilege that government could take away should they desire to do so.

6 hours ago, benwynn said:

And "entitlement" makes his case more than yours, so I'm not sure why you used the word..

He defined a right as being "That which is not prohibited". I highlight the word because the definition of the right is what you are entitled to do. The definition is not "that which is not prohibited". I am not prohibited from owning a Lamborghini. I am not entitled to owning a Lamborghini. See the difference?

There are rights and there is the choice to exercise them based on the consequences. They don't go away if you don't use them.

Yes, but those rights are not granted by a creator or god. They are granted by society. At one time, a woman did not have the right to her own person. Now she does.

It might not have been fair to her at the time, and it appalls most good people now, but the fact remains that women did not have rights at one point in history that they currently do have. The difference isn't the creator, but in the society we live in and what we (as a society) are willing to enforce. Rights DO go away if society choses not to believe they are rights and acts accordingly.

Share on other sites

And that legal entitlement is not defined by what is permitted. It's defined by what's prohibited.

Incorrect. There are a great many things that are legally permitted that you are not legally entitled to. I am not legally prohibited from knowing your name, address, and where to send copies of your online drivel for your family to laugh at. I am not entitled to know these things. There is a large difference between the two and it is that difference that defines a right from a privilege.

Starting at post #90 - everything I posted in this thread, was supposed to be in the "fire & fury" thread.

...looks like I accidentally found another way to quote a post from one thread, in a different thread: open both threads in separate tabs; use the multiquote button in the one thread, then hit reply in the other thread.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Gowdy's name has regularly been tossed around as a potential pick by the Trump administration to fill a judicial appointment. While he's denied that speculation in the past, a vacancy on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over South Carolina, opened up just one day before Gowdy announced his retirement."

"Gowdy's name has regularly been tossed around as a potential pick by the Trump administration to fill a judicial appointment. While he's denied that speculation in the past, a vacancy on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over South Carolina, opened up just one day before Gowdy announced his retirement."

Got to reward those destroying any illusion of credibility they have left. The issue for them is to get their rewards BEFORE Trump is incapable of granting them.

Gowdy as a judge? Yeah, 'cause that's a guy who's displayed an ability for being impartial...

Lack of impartiality didn't stop Roy Moore from getting back into the Chief Justice seat. You just need a state either stupid enough &/or bigoted enough to not care about such a trivial foundation of the justice system.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Lack of impartiality didn't stop Roy Moore from getting back into the Chief Justice seat. You just need a state either stupid enough &/or bigoted enough to not care about such a trivial foundation of the justice system.

Or a white house paying off a friend with a lifetime federal appointment.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Or a white house paying off a friend with a lifetime federal appointment.

White House counsel Don McGahn in recent weeks broached Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, about filling a slot on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — a newly vacated judgeship that Gowdy has eyed before, according to sources close to Gowdy. His fellow Palmetto State Republicans, Scott and Sen. Lindsey Graham, also urged him to accept the post.

But Gowdy, who's long complained about the increasingly toxic nature of politics, turned down the position, the sources said.

Share on other sites

Friends of Ryan reportedly said that he felt.......he was ready to step back due to frustrating aspects of the job, including working with the president.

"I can see the writing on the wall. We completely fucked up when we elected him and I am getting out before he takes me down with him."

He’s perfect for the private sector. Look after the interests of the guy who pays the most money, and fuck everyone else so that guy can make just a little bit more. He’s been preparing for the next phase his whole life.

He’s perfect for the private sector. Look after the interests of the guy who pays the most money, and fuck everyone else so that guy can make just a little bit more. He’s been preparing for the next phase his whole life.

Rep. Garrett announces he is an alcoholic and will not seek re-election.

RICHMOND — Rep. Thomas Garrett (R-Va.) announced Monday that he is struggling with alcoholism and will abandon his run for a second term in Congress so he can focus on recovery and his family.

Garrett, a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, is the 44th Republican to retire or announce they will not seek reelection to the House this year, according to CNN’s retirement tracker. Many are leaving in anticipation of a strong Democratic performance in Congressional races this fall and out of frustration with partisan politics in Washington.

The former Virginia state senator was facing a robust challenge from his Democratic challenger, journalist and author Leslie Cockburn, who had raised more money than him and had more cash on hand.

Rep. Garrett announces he is an alcoholic and will not seek re-election.

RICHMOND — Rep. Thomas Garrett (R-Va.) announced Monday that he is struggling with alcoholism and will abandon his run for a second term in Congress so he can focus on recovery and his family.

Garrett, a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, is the 44th Republican to retire or announce they will not seek reelection to the House this year, according to CNN’s retirement tracker. Many are leaving in anticipation of a strong Democratic performance in Congressional races this fall and out of frustration with partisan politics in Washington.

The former Virginia state senator was facing a robust challenge from his Democratic challenger, journalist and author Leslie Cockburn, who had raised more money than him and had more cash on hand.

Whoa. I have heard of folks citing "personal reasons" for stuff like this. I don't think I've heard anyone be as specific and open about it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I raced with a guy for years who said "thirty hours to detox, 30 minutes to retox - here's to ya". He is dead now. Congrats to you, my alcohol intake is something I monitor carefully, have known too many who didn't.